Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20

Download by: [Swinburne University of Technology] Date: 15 November 2017, At: 17:18

The Design JournalAn International Journal for All Aspects of Design

ISSN: 1460-6925 (Print) 1756-3062 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphicdesigners’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

Simone Taffe

To cite this article: Simone Taffe (2017) Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphicdesigners’ intuition through visual verbal co-design, The Design Journal, 20:sup1, S390-S400, DOI:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352916

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 06 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 31

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Design for Next

12th EAD Conference Sapienza University of Rome

12-14 April 2017

doi: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1352916

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

Simone Taffe

Swinburne University of Technology, School of Design, Melbourne, Australia *Corresponding author e-mail: staffe@swin.edu.au

Abstract: This paper aims to understand how co-design influences the design process, by presenting a case study where graphic designers and end-users co-designed asthma information. Three co-design activities are presented, as part of a larger project, revealing insights for the next generation of graphic designers. The co-design activities built a trusting, enjoyable environment, while posing the question are designers still in charge of the process? A visual verbal game dissolved participant status barriers, a persona scenario activity uncovered the real brief and a mix and match card game suspended participant politics. The findings suggest that co-designing with end-users, challenges graphic designers’ use of intuition, as new ways of categorizing asthma information material were revealed that previous design-led processes had overlooked. This study confirms the rich contribution of end-users’ creativity, when designers relinquish creative control, ultimately revealing co-design as a valuable approach for graphic designers engaging in bottom-up design processes.

Keywords: Co-design, Graphic design, Communication design, Case study, Participatory design

1. Introduction The importance of including end-user and stakeholder views for the acceptability of design projects

is now acknowledged. Co-design includes end-users in the design process with the aim of harnessing

their contextual knowledge and creative ideas. Authors claim that the success of design outcomes

depends on a bottom-up design process that includes public consultation and the views of end-users

and other stakeholders (Choi & Choi 2016; Frascara, 2004; Sanders, 2002). The idea that end-user

participation benefits commercial success affords some power to end-users over designers and

clients, but leaves aside co-design’s original democratic ideals of a bottom-up approach to design in

favour of corporations’ desire for more marketable and profitable products. Authors argue that it is

easy to justify investment in end-user research on the basis of high commercial returns (Lockwood,

Bachman, Oldach, & Rutter, 2001). The co-design literature considers the capacity of end-user

S390

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

SIMONE TAFFE

participation to enhance design outcomes in many fields such as; workplace design, information

technology, human-computer interaction, product design, and urban planning. There is little

evidence of its use in graphic design, despite co-design emerging as a field of practice and research in

the early 1970s. This leaves graphic designers with a lack of knowledge about how to facilitate end-

user creativity in the design process.

This paper studies the influence of co-design on the graphic design process through a case study of

designing asthma information. The study focuses on three visual verbal activities where the

designers relinquish creative control by facilitating the creative ideas of end-users. Tensions between

participants and standard creative solutions were expected. Given the exploratory nature of this

under-researched topic, case study workshops were used to allow for a rich exploration of the

proceedings. Conclusions are drawn based on an investigation of what happens when creative

control is shared by designers and end-users, suggesting co-design is a valuable foundation for the

next generation of graphic designers wanting to dissolve barriers and suspend politics with end-

users, and uncover the real client brief.

2. The shifting roles of designers and end-users The shift from user-centred to participatory to co-design has seen participants’ roles in the design

process change. In design, someone has to decide on design outcomes, raising issues of who owns

design outcomes. Some see end-users as the main players in the co-design process, supported by

designers (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Others argue designers need to remain in charge, taking

responsibility for synthesis and execution of design ideas (Hanington, 2007). When end-users are

central to the design process, designers can feel excluded, their resultant lack of ownership of a

project jeopardising its continuation. If the views of designers dominate, end-users may not be

represented in decision-making.

Co-design represents a break with conventional design approaches in recognising end-users as active

participants in the design process. In co-design, the roles of end-users and designers are fused. End-

users are positioned as experts of their experience, working alongside designers in co-design

(Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Figure 1 represents the standard graphic design practice where

designers take charge of the process, responding intuitively to briefs in the absence of any contact

with end-users. The designer creates with an imagined end-user in mind and delivers a designed

artefact to this imagined end-user. Figure 2 represents the influence of co-design on the participants

in graphic design, showing, the barriers dissolving between end-users and designers. The source

material in Figure 1 and 2 is original and conceived by the author (Author, 2015).

Figure 1. Graphic designers in charge, using intuition to design for an imagined end-user.

S391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

Figure 2. Graphic designers and end-users jointly in charge, sharing the creative space in participatory graphic design.

The co-design literature is alert to paying lip service to the inclusion of end-users in design, while

discussing the problems of excluding end-users from the design process. Criticisms are made when

end-users are included to make suggestions rather than decisions, where designers extract end-user

preferences rather than working inclusively (Bravo, 1993; Macdonald, 2015). Others attribute the

proliferation of “user-unfit” design to the fact that end-users’ needs are not seriously considered,

urging designers to see their role as facilitators who enable end-users to participate in design (Sui,

2003). Authors argue that how and when end-users become involved in the design process is as

important as the nature of a final design, motivated stakeholders being essential to successful design

implementation (Lockwood, Bachman, Oldach, & Rutter, 2001). Such discussions can be found

throughout the more than three decades of writing on user-centred, participatory and co-design,

revealing the field’s tendency to continually identify and reinforce the value of co-design rather than

moving onto its wholesale application and studies into its real-world efficacy. The debate about the

politics of end-user participation is ongoing with suggestions that the role of the designer is changing

to accommodate the difficulties. In light of these shifting roles of designers and end-users, this study

aims to further understand how various co-design activities influence the graphic design process.

3. Method This paper reports a co-design case study for the Asthma Foundation of Victoria, Australia in which

designers and Foundation staff responsible for public education participated in co-design workshops,

to conceive possible new approaches to asthma information design. Twelve Foundation staff and five

postgraduate graphic design students participated in the study, with the author acting as facilitator.

The Asthma case was chosen for its non-commercial nature, allowing for a long engagement.

Preliminary site visits were undertaken to establish a trusting, working relationship with the staff and

for the designers to become familiar with the context for the eventual design proposals, revealing a

mass of printed information developed over time, divided by demographic or asthma trigger

categories.

Case study method was chosen, as co-design applied to graphic design is a new area of design

research, thereby suggesting a method which allows the whole context of a phenomenon to be

explored and a rich understanding of the factors involved to emerge. Case study is one method

within the constructivist gamut, being recommended for contemporary issues where accepted

principles and constructs are yet to be established (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Perry, 1998). The techniques

of notetaking and photography were used to record the proceedings of the workshops. Among the

data sources used were: existing information brochures, workshop photographs, notetakers’ notes,

email correspondence and design concepts. For analysis, all the data sources were combined,

reorganised chronologically under issue headings. Following are the findings of various co-design

activities trialled, aiming to shed light on a new foundation of sharing creative control in a bottom-up

design process.

S392

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

SIMONE TAFFE

4. Findings

4.1 Visual verbal game: Dissolving participant barriers This study trialled visual verbal activities and games based on an extensive discussion on the value of

design and language games that promote interchange between end-user and designer knowledge

(Ehn, 1993; Johansson, 2006; Tomes, Oates, & Armstrong, 1998; Ulusoy, 1999; Zender & Crutcher,

2007). Here, the field of co-design has been influenced by theories of language games and related

communicative actions from ethnography and post-structural philosophy. The idea that playing

games to transfer tacit knowledge of people and leads to common understand can be traced back to

Plato’s adage that, “You can learn more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of

conversation” (Quoted in Lancefield, 2006, p. 1). Ivey and Sanders (2006) describe the use of

storytelling games in co-design “as an effective method of prompting social interaction by generating

acquaintance” (p.26). Workshop One included a game based on Ehn’s (1993) recommendation that

the use of playful games where everyone has fun are effective icebreakers. The game sought to

generate discussion about the design task and ideally breakdown some inherent barriers between

the participants.

In this activity the facilitator asked all participants to brainstorm words about information where

words such as “power”, “information” and “consistency” were itemised on a whiteboard. Then all

participants chose a word to write on a card. Each participant then passed the card to the person on

his or her right whose task was to draw an image of the word. The card was then passed to a third

participant, who the facilitator asked to guess at the meaning of the drawing and the original word.

Several staff chose the word “consistency” to write on their card and others drew similar images

when required to illustrate the word (see figure 3). In discussion, the staff members highlighted the

need for consistency in asthma information where deviation from the facts could have serious

consequences, the designers picked up on the sense that the staff were very much “on the same

wavelength”.

Figure 3. Visual verbal game relaxed atmosphere; chosen word “consistency” represented visually.

The introduction of drawing into the co-design workshops at the beginning of the process aided in

repositioning the role of the participants in relation to each other. One reluctant drawer complained,

“But I cannot draw”. Another commented, “I won a prize for drawing in primary school”. Another

joked, “I failed kindergarten drawing three times”. Participants teased each other that the quality of

their drawings made guessing the original word impossible. One participant commented that the

workshop was like being in a “remedial drawing class”. There were comments asking other

S393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

participants not to be too critical when interpreting drawings, suggesting a desire for the formation

of a collective ethics in the group, although the overall need to draw was met with good humour. The

icebreaker visual verbal game seemed to work in dissolving barriers of unfamiliarity and differing

expertise between the participants.

The Foundation staff saw that the designers had superior drawing skills, but everyone found that this

did not always lead to ready interpretation of an image, challenging the priority of both visual

metaphor and intuition in graphic design. For example, one designer drew a joey kangaroo in its

mother’s pouch in response to the word “quick access”. The staff member interpreting the drawing

confused the kangaroo with a rabbit and was unable to guess the meaning of the image. Tomes,

Oates and Armstrong (1998) argue that visual verbal games offer designers an insight into the tacit

knowledge of end-users, offering a repertoire of acceptable conceptual forms that negotiate the gap

between the visual and verbal. The misinterpretation of the kangaroo drawing exposed the potential

ineffectiveness of both literal and metaphorical strategies in graphic design when seeking to convey

particular meanings. The visual verbal games leveled the statuses between the participants,

highlighting the challenge of graphic designers to develop understandable concept designs. It was an

important point in the co-design process, prompting the staff to consider for the first time how their

current information might be perceived by end-users. For the designers, it suggested the importance

of checking design concepts with audiences before proceeding.

4.2 Personas scenarios activity: Uncovering the real brief The second workshop used text and image to test the effectiveness of a personas scenarios activity,

motivated by Jansen, Croonen and de Stadler’s (2005) research aiming to make a persona as real as

possible. This activity explored personas and scenarios of typical people who use asthma

information. At the end of the activity the facilitator asked participants to summarise their persona,

clarifying the person’s name, age, a description and drawing of the person’s scenario. This activity

incorporated image and text, expanding on the success of the previous visual verbal game. Where

the Foundation staff were initially reluctant to draw in the previous visual verbal game, the majority

of participants visualised their ideas without hesitation in this persona scenario activity. Figure 4

shows two summary pages created by the Foundation staff where lengthy amounts of text were

written to begin with, but when asked to summarise the information on one page, drawings with few

words were produced. One explanation for this is that the Foundation staff were becoming

comfortable with the idea of drawing after the experience of the first visual verbal game.

Figure 4. Examples of persona scenario summary pages with written and visual information.

S394

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

SIMONE TAFFE

Designers are challenged to understand the actual context for information delivery when involved in

co-design. One of the project aims for was to reduce the number of pieces of asthma information, as

the site visits identified information duplication. At first, this activity sought to develop appropriate

personas for the Foundation to continue to categorise the information by age and gender. At the

beginning of the persona scenario activity, the group was asked to brainstorm all the Foundation’s

end-users and ways to categorise asthma information. The following categories were identified:

carers for people with asthma; schools; health professionals; children services; sporting industry;

zoos and children with asthma. There was also a discussion about the importance of asthma triggers

to information categorisation, for example, pollen, exercise or smoking. This information was

predictable. This persona scenario activity aimed to see what patterns emerged to enable

streamlining of asthma information.

The idea of categorising asthma information around emotional triggers was discovered through an

analysis of the patterns that emerged in this persona scenario activity. This activity showed that the

emotional state of people with asthma was more important than their age or gender when deciding

how to categorise asthma information. The staff repeatedly spoke about personas such as; the

helpless child, the embarrassed teenager, the panicky student, the distressed mother and the

frightened senior. One Foundation staff described a helpless child persona as Dhillon, aged 3 who

needs to carry a bum bag with his reliever and action plan. A teenager persona “David”, aged 16 was

developed, who is too embarrassed to carry a puffer, needs an attractive small puffer not resembling

a medical device. One Foundation staff was concerned about an elderly man persona he called

“Fred” who is 83 and is frightened when he coughs and can’t breathe. The identification of the

emotional response of fear to asthma, especially in elderly people gave the designers an insight to an

appropriate direction for information materials in the future.

4.3 Mix and match card game: Suspending participant politics To further investigate the influence of visual verbal co-design games, a mix and match card game was

trialled in the third workshop, involved matching words to symbols on cards to check whether

specific asthma trigger symbols conceived by the designers were understandable by the Foundation

staff. This game was part of an asthma information folder concept activity. In this game the group

readily came to a consensus about which symbols matched which words, such as an image of a

cigarette and the word smoking (see figure 5). Before the mix and match card game, the Foundation

staff had a strong negative reaction to the design concepts presented by the designers. During the

card game the Foundation staff stood up and became physically active in the game indicating a high

level of engagement (see figure 5). The staff found the game enjoyable, as there was laughter while

playing the game. However, once the game stopped, the staff reverted to being critical of the

designers’ ideas. Strong personality barriers were also overcome while playing the card game. This

finding is supported by Brandt, Messeter and Binder who argue that, “In the playful dramaturgy of

design games politics of negotiation are postponed” (2008, p. 63).

S395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

Figure 5. Visual verbal representation of asthma triggers; playing the mix and match card game.

The staff members’ high level of design awareness surprised the designers. The staff commented

freely and authoritatively on poor choices of typeface, colour and imagery. They provided

information on the usefulness or redundancy of individual pieces of information, validating their

presence in the design process. Sanders argues that end-users are not in the habit of using or

expressing their creativity, creating a situation where designers think end-users are not creative at all

(2002). The Foundation staff made well-informed comments about design such as, “You can hardly

read it” and “It is badly designed”. A Foundation staff member reflected that a designer can ‘nail it’

especially if they have a long-standing relationship with the client. Another criticised their designers

in the past when “they get caught up in making it ‘look pretty’, instead of focusing on the practicality

of the information”. Another commented on the value of the co-design process as, “if designers want

to get it right they need more time to get inside our heads”. One Foundation staff said she is a

creative person and enjoyed working with the designers as, “their imagination helps to stretch mine

even further”, reflecting Cunningham’s (2008) claim that in design, end-users react positively to

students as they view them as having fresh creative insights.

On the other hand, the staff expected the designers to be creative. One worker was worried that, “I

would not be very creative or have any good ideas” another stated, “I dreaded having to draw”.

Sanders argues that for end-users to express their latent creativity designers need to provide

activities that facilitate creativity, as she claims everyone is creative (2001). Another worker thought,

“The designers would come up with ideas and we would just say yes or no” and “I thought we would

have an input, but our ideas would not be taken notice of”. Another wrote, “The final decisions

would be with the designers”. This makes apparent the conventional divided roles of designers and

end-users.

5. Discussion The findings indicate that co-design activities offer significant benefits in bridging the worlds of end-

user and designer participants, breaking down barriers and enabling learning. The findings also

suggest that co-design has the potential to be a new foundation for graphic designers to uncover the

real brief, here for example, the idea of categorising asthma information via emotional categories

rather than age or gender demographics was discovered. When designers approach design as an

intuitive creative act, for Tomes, Oats and Armstrong (1998) it is not surprising there are difficulties

in establishing a common understanding. The Foundation staff were divided in their opinion of the

value of working with designers. They commented positively on the creativity and fresh insights of

graphic designers they had worked with in the past developing information materials, but criticised

S396

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

SIMONE TAFFE

the tendency of designers to ignore important criteria to pursue an individual creative agenda,

leading to flawed outcomes such as a fridge magnet describing the key steps in asthma first aid with

unreadable type. Intuitive solutions did not work in this case.

The use of sketches is an important part of the design process and one of the main ways that graphic

designers access their intuition. Ulusoy (1999) entreats graphic designers to use intuitive drawing to

generate ideas, a step represented as simultaneous with decision-making. One of the hurdles in

translating design knowledge to end-user participants is the division that lies between visual and

verbal skills. One view is that design is a right brain process in that the designer is “a mute genius”, or

“a doer not a talker” (Tomes, Oates, & Armstrong, 1998, p. 141.). There is broad agreement in the

literature that design is an act of individual creation to which verbalization and logical analysis are

seen as only peripherally relevant, but a combination of visual and verbal elements is argued to be

preferable (Brandt, 2006; Tomes, Oates, & Armstrong, 1998). For Cross (1999), sketches are half

formed ideas that enable the act of discovery, as external expressions of internal mental processes,

they exist to be criticised rather than admired (1999). In my research I encouraged sketches to be

part of the process to translate the design concepts into understandable ideas.

Visual verbal activities highlighted the challenge of conceptualisation through text and image, an

undertaking intrinsic to graphic designers’ work. Overall relationships and negotiations are integral to

the design process so the skills of visual verbal translation need to also be recognised as integral to

design. The visual verbal games played in my research demonstrated that designer representations

and can be misunderstood. The ability to visualise is a core skill and source of pride for designers,

where non-designers rely on verbal skills in their daily life, creating a gulf between end-user and

designers in co-design. In 2005, Reid and Reed’s study shows, discussion accompanied by freehand

sketching was associated with reduced collaboration and shared understanding, where discussion

alone saw end-users and facilitators dominate the flow of conversation and exert greater influence

on outcomes. My study does not exactly replicate this finding, as the combination of text and image

uncovered novel project insights.

Studies of non-hierarchical design teams show it is not the identification of specific design goals, but

participant status that influences design outcomes (Johansson & Woodilla, 2008). Walton (2000)

argues that managing the perceived status of group members is vital to consensus building and

decision making. He argues that the mix of disciplines and expertise in co-design does not matter as

much as the perceptions of people’s power in an organisation in suggesting proximity to corporate

strategy. In my research the outcomes make apparent the value of visual verbal game in breaking

down personality and status barriers. Johansson and Woodilla (2008) claim that if status barriers are

overcome then transferring knowledge between participants is more likely to occur. In my study,

visual verbal games were a way of dissolving participant status barriers in an enjoyable, relaxed

environment. The games challenged the designers’ conventional method of intuitive problem solving

demonstrating that end-users can misunderstand design visualizations. The games enabled fast

access to expert knowledge in a learning-by-doing activity.

The visual verbal activities in my study demonstrate that conceiving and representing with both text

and image is achievable for end-users, independently, in collaboration and alongside designers. For

Bielenberg (1997), the profession of graphic design involves ensuring a connection is forged between

designed communications and end-users. He contends that, “Conflict occurs when you combine the

intoxication of craft, exposure to and interest in cutting-edge design with the engineering of a client-

driven message to a client-defined audience” (p.183). The responsibility of the designer is to develop

an appropriate and effective visual language given the objectives of the project, meaning that

simplistic assessments based on aesthetic preference, a typical method for choosing the

S397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

appropriateness of a design direction in graphic design, needs to be replaced with a focus on creating

a deep connection with end-users.

6. Conclusion This study aimed to understand how co-design influences the graphic design process, through a case

study where graphic designers and end-users co-designed asthma information ideas. Three co-design

activities were reported each based on translating visual and verbal ideas. The first visual verbal

game was effective in breaking the ice and dissolving perceived status barriers between all

participants, building trusting in a fun and lively environment. The mix and match card game

suspended participant politics as the end-users enthusiastically played the game of sorting imagery

of asthma triggers to the matching word. This game showed the value of co-design to put aside

participant differences while sharing ideas. It was in the persona scenario activity where the real

brief emerged. This activity showed that co-design aids the discovery of important tacit information

which would not have surfaced without end-user creative participation. This activity led to new ways

of categorizing asthma information, which had not been identified using conventional graphic design

processes. The segmentation of asthma sufferers, according to feelings of anxiety, distress,

embarrassment, fear or shock was a new approach for the Asthma Foundation, which previously

used divisions, according to age, gender and asthma triggers as a basis for the development of

information brochures. This outcome is noteworthy as it challenges the designer’s role as intuitive

problem solver, highlighting the value of co-design to make visible appropriate outcomes rather than

intuitively guessing end-user preferences.

The next generation of graphic designers may find end-users expecting creative participation in an

era of end-user engagement. Will designers still be in charge of the design process? No not entirely.

This study suggests that when designers shift their creative control to facilitating end-user creativity

through co-design activities, a rich contribution of novel ideas positively influences the project

direction. Therefore, graphic designers wishing to engage in bottom-up design can learn from this

study that co-design is a valuable approach to dissolve barriers, uncover the real brief and suspend

participant politics.

References Bielenberg, J. (1997). Thinking about communication. In M. Bierut, W. Drenttel, S. Heller & D. K.

Holland (Eds.), Looking Closer 2: Critical writings on graphic design, New York: Allworth Press, 183-4.

Bravo, E. (1993). The hazards of leaving out the users. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and practices, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-12.

Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In G. Jacucci & F. Kensing (Eds.), Proceedings of the PDC'06, Trento: ACM Press, 57-66.

Brandt, E., Messeter, J., & Binder, T., (2008). Formatting design dialogues: Games and participation. Co-Design, 4(1), 51-64.

Choi, S. M., & Choi, S. (2016). From representation to participation: Graphic identity of the BMW Guggenheim Lab. The Design Journal, 19(5), 747-61.

Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25-39.

Cunningham, W. S. (2008). Voices from the field: Practitioner reactions to collaborative research initiatives. Action Research, 6(4), 373-90.

S398

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

SIMONE TAFFE

Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and practices’, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 41-78.

Frascara, J. (2004). Communication design: Principles, methods and practice, New York: Allworth Press.

Hanington, B. (2007). Generative research in design education, Proceedings of the IASDR07 Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 1-15.

Ivey, M., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2006). Designing a physical environment for co-experience and assessing participant use, Proceedings of the Wonderground, Design Research Society International Conference, Lisbon: CPSR 1-35.

Johansson, M. (2006). Collaborative sketching: Co-authoring future scenarios with bits and pieces of ethnography. CoDesign, 2(3), 179-89.

Johansson, U., & Woodilla, J. (2008). Designers dancing within hierarchies: The importance of non-hierarchical power for design integration and implementation. The Design Journal, 11(2), 95-118.

Lancefield, K. (2006). Virtual worlds - Real learning! A pyschological perspective. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, 1-16.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, California: Sage Publications.

Lockwood, T., Bachman, T., Oldach, M., & Rutter, B. (2001), Perspectives on communicating the value of design. Design Management Journal, 12(3), 76-83.

Macdonald, A. (2013). The inner resource: Enabling the designer withing us all – A case study. The Design Journal, 16(2), 175-96.

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 785-802.

Sanders, E. B.-N. (2001). Collective creativity. LOOP: AIGA Journal of Interaction Design Education, 3, 1-6.

Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed), Design and the Social Sciences: Making connections, London: Taylor & Francis, 1-8.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5-18.

Sui, K. W. M. (2003). Users' Creative responses and designers' roles. Design Issues, 19(2), 64-74.

Taffe, S. (2015). The hybrid designer/end-user: Revealing paradoxes in codesign.” Design Studies, 40, (C month): 39–59.

Tomes, A., Oates, C., & Armstrong, P. (1998). Talking design: Negotiating the verbal-visual translation. Design Studies, 19(2), 127-42.

Ulusoy, Z. (1999). To design versus to understand design: The role of graphic representations and verbal expressions. Design Studies, 20(2), 123-30.

Walton, T. (2000). Design management as a business and academic discipline. Design Management Journal, 1(1), 5-7.

Zender, M., & Crutcher, K. A. (2007). Visible language for the expression of scientific concepts. Visible Language, 41(1), 23-49.

About the Authors:

Simone Taffe is Associate Professor in Communication Design at Swinburne University of Technology. Simone lectures in the areas of branding and identity design and inclusive and participatory design.

S399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17

Who’s in charge? End-users challenge graphic designers’ intuition through visual verbal co-design

Simone's research addresses co-design and its influence on the communication design process

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the Asthma Foundation Victoria staff and Swinburne University of Technology design students for participating in the workshops. Special thanks also to Carolyn Barnes and Deirdre Barron for their supervision of this research project as part of my PhD, and Stephanie Bradley for her help in the design work on the infographics.

S400

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:18

15

Nov

embe

r 20

17